“Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller

“Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller first appeared in The Black Scholar in 1987 (Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 35-39). In this article, Fuller critiques the systemic exclusion of Black writers from American literary anthologies, highlighting the mechanisms through which literary institutions, funding agencies, and editorial boards maintain racial bias. He exposes how federal agencies, such as the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, selectively allocate funding to literary publications while disregarding Black-edited magazines, thereby marginalizing Black literature from mainstream recognition. Fuller also scrutinizes the American Literary Anthology project, which, under the guise of impartiality, upheld racial bias by appointing predominantly white “distinguished” writers as judges, ensuring the continued exclusion of Black literary voices. He argues that this exclusion is rooted in the broader assumption that European aesthetics define literary value, dismissing the rich linguistic and cultural traditions of Black literature. The article serves as a crucial critique of editorial racism, demonstrating how the systematic neglect of Black poetry and fiction in anthologies perpetuates a limited and Eurocentric literary canon. Fuller’s work remains significant in literary theory as it underscores the necessity for Black scholars, writers, and educators to challenge white-dominated literary spaces and advocate for the inclusion of Black-authored anthologies that authentically represent their cultural and artistic contributions. His call for Black agency in shaping literary discourse remains relevant in ongoing discussions about representation and diversity in publishing.

Summary of “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller

• Systemic Exclusion of Black Writers
  • Fuller argues that American literary anthologies systematically exclude Black writers and Black-edited publications, effectively erasing Black literary contributions from mainstream recognition.
  • “The list of those magazines which was released contained not one black-edited or black-oriented publication.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 35)
• Bias in Government Funding and Literary Institutions
  • The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, responsible for dispersing federal funds, failed to support Black literary magazines while funding white-edited “little” magazines.
  • “The response from Washington was that most of these magazines emphasized politics and civil rights, as well as literature, and therefore were ineligible for the National Foundation’s list.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 36)
• White-Controlled “Distinguished” Literary Panels
  • The American Literary Anthology project, despite being federally supported, excluded Black writers by allowing only white judges to select works, reinforcing racial bias in literary recognition.
  • “Each year, the editors of the review named a group of ‘distinguished’ writers who would assist them by passing judgment on the material appearing in the anthology. And each year, until the last year of the project’s duration, the group of ‘distinguished’ writers was all-white.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 36)
• The Tokenism of Black Representation
  • Even when Black writers were included in anthologies, it was often in a tokenistic manner, with only one or two Black authors being featured at a time.
  • “One black writer at a time is in keeping with the tradition.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 37)
• European-Centered Aesthetic Standards
  • White literary authorities dismissed Black literature as lacking aesthetic value, claiming that true literature must adhere to European artistic traditions.
  • “All the ignorance and presumptuousness with which whites seek to overwhelm and discredit black literature grow out of the conviction that the only valid aesthetic operative in the world has its roots in Europe.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 36)
• Editorial Racism in Literary Awards and Anthologies
  • Prestigious anthologies such as The O. Henry Awards and The Best American Short Stories systematically ignored Black writers and relied primarily on white-edited journals.
  • “Prize Stories 1971: The O. Henry Awards, the annual anthology edited by William Abrahams and published by Doubleday, lists 92 magazines which were ‘consulted’ in selecting the 17 stories in the collection. Of the 92 only one, Phylon, is black-edited.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 37)
• Rejection of Black Poetry Based on Racist Justifications
  • White editors and critics argued that Black poets lacked linguistic sophistication, often dismissing Black poetry as unworthy of inclusion in major literary anthologies.
  • “I am simply pointing out that blacks have been denied education and have encouraged one another to think that assertion can take the place of language in poetry.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 38)
• Call for Black Literary Independence
  • Fuller concludes that Black writers, educators, and editors must reject white-controlled anthologies and create their own literary spaces to ensure fair representation.
  • “Blacks should insist that these books be replaced by ones conceived and organized by blacks who understand that black people in America are not merely dark versions of Europeans but a proud people with a very special past and a rich future to claim.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 39)

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition	Relevant Quotation (Fuller, 1987)
Systemic Exclusion	The structural and institutional mechanisms that prevent Black writers from being included in literary anthologies and funding opportunities.	“The list of those magazines which was released contained not one black-edited or black-oriented publication.” (p. 35)
Tokenism	The practice of including a minimal number of Black writers to give the illusion of diversity while maintaining the dominance of white literary standards.	“One black writer at a time is in keeping with the tradition.” (p. 37)
Editorial Racism	The biases within editorial boards that shape which works are included in anthologies, often favoring white authors and dismissing Black literature.	“Each year, the editors of the review named a group of ‘distinguished’ writers… And each year, until the last year of the project’s duration, the group of ‘distinguished’ writers was all-white.” (p. 36)
Aesthetic Hegemony	The dominance of European literary standards as the only legitimate measure of literary value, dismissing Black literature as inferior.	“All the ignorance and presumptuousness with which whites seek to overwhelm and discredit black literature grow out of the conviction that the only valid aesthetic operative in the world has its roots in Europe.” (p. 36)
Cultural Gatekeeping	The control over which cultural and literary works are recognized and valued by mainstream institutions.	“Practically every editor … thinks naturally of the full orchestra, of the great tradition of poetry in English. He listens for the marvels of language in poetry.” (p. 38)
Institutional Racism	The ways in which government agencies, funding bodies, and publishing houses reinforce racial disparities in literature.	“The response from Washington was that most of these magazines emphasized politics and civil rights, as well as literature, and therefore were ineligible for the National Foundation’s list.” (p. 36)
Canon Formation	The process through which certain works and authors are deemed “worthy” of literary inclusion, often excluding Black authors.	“Prize Stories 1971: The O. Henry Awards, the annual anthology edited by William Abrahams and published by Doubleday, lists 92 magazines which were ‘consulted’… Of the 92 only one, Phylon, is black-edited.” (p. 37)
Racial Manipulation	The practice of using a small number of Black voices in institutions to dismiss accusations of racism while maintaining white control.	“If some ‘militant’ black attempts to disrupt the racist routine, then the rule is to simply counteract his troublesomeness, by elevating to prominence a more ‘conservative,’ and more manageable, black.” (p. 36)
Alternative Literary Spaces	The call for Black writers and editors to create their own publishing institutions outside of white-dominated literary spaces.	“Blacks should insist that these books be replaced by ones conceived and organized by blacks who understand that black people in America are not merely dark versions of Europeans but a proud people with a very special past and a rich future to claim.” (p. 39)

Contribution of “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critical Race Theory (CRT) in Literature

• Fuller’s critique aligns with Critical Race Theory by demonstrating how institutional racism operates within literary anthologies and funding agencies. He shows how exclusion is not incidental but systematic.
• Reference: “The response from Washington was that most of these magazines emphasized politics and civil rights, as well as literature, and therefore were ineligible for the National Foundation’s list.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 36)
• Key Contribution: Highlights how racism is embedded in the structures that determine literary worth.

2. Canon Formation Theory

• Fuller challenges the formation of the literary canon, arguing that the process favors white authors and dismisses Black literature as inferior.
• Reference: “Prize Stories 1971: The O. Henry Awards, the annual anthology edited by William Abrahams and published by Doubleday, lists 92 magazines which were ‘consulted’… Of the 92 only one, Phylon, is black-edited.” (p. 37)
• Key Contribution: Critiques how literary “authority” is used to exclude Black writers, calling for a redefinition of the canon.

3. Postcolonial Literary Theory

• Fuller’s argument aligns with postcolonial critiques of Western literary dominance by exposing how Black literature is judged through Eurocentric standards.
• Reference: “All the ignorance and presumptuousness with which whites seek to overwhelm and discredit black literature grow out of the conviction that the only valid aesthetic operative in the world has its roots in Europe.” (p. 36)
• Key Contribution: Challenges the idea that only European literary traditions are legitimate, advocating for the recognition of Black literary traditions.

4. African American Literary Criticism

• Fuller extends the work of scholars like Henry Louis Gates Jr. by emphasizing the need for Black literary self-determination and independent publishing.
• Reference: “Blacks should insist that these books be replaced by ones conceived and organized by blacks who understand that black people in America are not merely dark versions of Europeans but a proud people with a very special past and a rich future to claim.” (p. 39)
• Key Contribution: Argues that Black literary production should not seek validation from white institutions but should instead establish independent platforms.

5. Cultural Hegemony (Gramscian Theory)

• Fuller’s analysis reflects Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony, where dominant groups control cultural production to maintain power.
• Reference: “Each year, the editors of the review named a group of ‘distinguished’ writers… And each year, until the last year of the project’s duration, the group of ‘distinguished’ writers was all-white.” (p. 36)
• Key Contribution: Demonstrates how literary institutions reinforce white cultural dominance by controlling whose voices are legitimized.

6. Reader-Response Theory

• By critiquing white editorial control over literary selection, Fuller underscores how literary meaning is shaped by editorial and institutional gatekeeping, rather than by readers alone.
• Reference: “If a minority of purchasers is displeased, well, tough; the economics of publishing do not permit sentiment.” (p. 36)
• Key Contribution: Challenges the idea that literary works are selected based purely on merit, arguing instead that institutional biases shape what readers consume.

7. Black Aesthetic Theory

• Fuller aligns with Black Aesthetic Theory, which argues for the creation of art and literature that reflects Black experiences and rejects white standards of artistic value.
• Reference: “The posture of the Hills is the generally prevailing one among those whites in a position to decide whether black writing qualifies as literature.” (p. 38)
• Key Contribution: Calls for Black communities to define their own literary standards rather than conforming to white aesthetics.

Examples of Critiques Through “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller

Literary Work & Author/Editor	Critique Through Fuller’s Argument	Supporting Quotation (Fuller, 1987)
Prize Stories 1971: The O. Henry Awards – Edited by William Abrahams	The anthology ignored Black literary contributions by consulting 92 magazines, of which only one was Black-edited. Black representation was minimal and tokenistic.	“Prize Stories 1971: The O. Henry Awards, the annual anthology edited by William Abrahams and published by Doubleday, lists 92 magazines which were ‘consulted’ in selecting the 17 stories in the collection. Of the 92 only one, Phylon, is black-edited.” (p. 37)
The Best American Short Stories (1971) – Edited by Martha Foley	The anthology included only two Black-edited journals out of 128 consulted, reinforcing the exclusion of Black voices. A single Black writer (Hal Bennett) was featured, continuing the tradition of token representation.	“Miss Foley, like Mr. Abrahams, had selected a token black writer and story, Hal Bennett and his ‘Dotson Gerber Resurrected,’ which also, coincidentally, appeared in Playboy.” (p. 37)
How We Live (1978) – Edited by Rust Hills & Penny Chapin Hills	The editors explicitly dismissed Black literary excellence, claiming only two “first-rate” Black writers (Ralph Ellison & James Baldwin) existed. Additionally, they included white and Jewish writers in a section meant to represent Black life.	“Only two first-rate Negro writers can be named—Ralph Ellison and James Baldwin—and the ranks behind them are almost empty.” (p. 37)
Anthologies of American Poetry – Various Editors (Selden Rodman cited)	Black poetry was systematically excluded based on racist aesthetic judgments, with editors claiming that Black poets lacked linguistic sophistication and artistic mastery.	“Until recently there hasn’t been any Afro-American verse that was more than just that—verse.” (p. 38)

Criticism Against “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller

• Lack of Engagement with Counterarguments
  • Fuller strongly critiques white editors and institutions but does not fully address potential counterarguments from within these institutions or acknowledge efforts made (however minimal) to include Black voices.
  • Critics might argue that while exclusion was prevalent, some editors were actively trying to include Black writers, albeit in limited ways.
• Overgeneralization of White Editorial Bias
  • Fuller paints most white editors and institutions as deliberately racist and exclusionary without fully considering nuances—such as market demands, editorial constraints, or unconscious biases.
  • His assertion that white editors universally adhere to European aesthetics could be seen as too broad a claim, ignoring potential instances of genuine openness to diverse literature.
• Limited Discussion of Class and Economic Factors
  • The article focuses heavily on race but does not sufficiently explore economic and class dynamics that may have also contributed to the exclusion of Black writers from literary anthologies.
  • Small literary magazines often struggled financially, and selection biases may have also been shaped by commercial viability rather than outright racism.
• Neglect of Internal Divisions within Black Literature
  • Fuller advocates for Black-led literary spaces but does not critically engage with divisions within the Black literary community (e.g., debates between political vs. artistic writing, urban vs. rural Black voices, etc.).
  • Some critics might argue that his solution—Black-edited anthologies—does not inherently guarantee fair representation of all Black literary voices.
• Emphasis on Government Responsibility Over Independent Action
  • Fuller’s focus on government funding and institutional support might be seen as overly dependent on state mechanisms rather than advocating for more grassroots, community-led literary initiatives.
  • While he later encourages Black self-publishing, his initial arguments center around government neglect, which some might see as an overreliance on federal solutions.
• Aesthetic vs. Political Debate
  • His claim that Black literature is dismissed due to European aesthetic dominance does not fully engage with the broader artistic debate—some editors may have excluded works not due to racism, but due to differing literary tastes and styles.
  • This raises the question: should all literature be judged purely based on racial representation, or should editorial judgment also consider artistic merit, regardless of race?

Representative Quotations from “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The list of those magazines which was released contained not one black-edited or black-oriented publication.” (Fuller, 1987, p. 35)	Fuller exposes the systemic exclusion of Black literary publications from anthologies and funding opportunities, highlighting racial bias in institutional decision-making.
“Each year, the editors of the review named a group of ‘distinguished’ writers who would assist them by passing judgment on the material appearing in the anthology. And each year, until the last year of the project’s duration, the group of ‘distinguished’ writers was all-white.” (p. 36)	This statement critiques the lack of Black judges in the selection process of literary anthologies, reinforcing how white-controlled institutions maintain exclusion.
“One black writer at a time is in keeping with the tradition.” (p. 37)	Fuller criticizes tokenism in literary anthologies, arguing that white editors include only a single Black writer to avoid accusations of racism while maintaining white dominance.
“All the ignorance and presumptuousness with which whites seek to overwhelm and discredit black literature grow out of the conviction that the only valid aesthetic operative in the world has its roots in Europe.” (p. 36)	He challenges Eurocentric literary standards that dismiss Black literature as illegitimate or inferior, advocating for recognition of Black artistic traditions.
“The response from Washington was that most of these magazines emphasized politics and civil rights, as well as literature, and therefore were ineligible for the National Foundation’s list.” (p. 36)	This quote highlights how Black literary magazines were excluded under the pretext of being “too political,” revealing how institutions marginalized Black voices by setting arbitrary restrictions.
“Prize Stories 1971: The O. Henry Awards, the annual anthology edited by William Abrahams and published by Doubleday, lists 92 magazines which were ‘consulted’ in selecting the 17 stories in the collection. Of the 92 only one, Phylon, is black-edited.” (p. 37)	Fuller critiques the lack of diversity in literary awards and anthologies, showing how Black writers are systematically left out of major literary recognition.
“Only two first-rate Negro writers can be named—Ralph Ellison and James Baldwin—and the ranks behind them are almost empty.” (p. 37)	He exposes the racist perception that only a select few Black authors are worthy of literary recognition, dismissing the contributions of countless Black writers.
“Until recently there hasn’t been any Afro-American verse that was more than just that—verse.” (p. 38)	This statement criticizes the literary establishment’s claim that Black poetry lacks artistic depth, reinforcing how Black creative expression has been undervalued.
“Blacks should insist that these books be replaced by ones conceived and organized by blacks who understand that black people in America are not merely dark versions of Europeans but a proud people with a very special past and a rich future to claim.” (p. 39)	Fuller advocates for Black self-determination in literature, calling for independent Black publishing and educational resources that honor Black cultural identity.
“If a minority of purchasers is displeased, well, tough; the economics of publishing do not permit sentiment.” (p. 36)	This quote reveals the profit-driven motives of the publishing industry, which prioritizes white readership and ignores demands for more inclusive literary representation.

Suggested Readings: “Racism in Literary Anthologies” by Hoyt Fuller

1. Fuller, Hoyt. “RACISM IN LITERARY ANTHOLOGIES.” The Black Scholar, vol. 18, no. 1, 1987, pp. 35–39. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41068175. Accessed 18 Mar. 2025.
2. ruby, jennie. “Racism in Literature.” Off Our Backs, vol. 18, no. 8, 1988, pp. 19–19. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25796514. Accessed 18 Mar. 2025.
3. Bowser, Benjamin P. “Racism: Origin and Theory.” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 48, no. 6, 2017, pp. 572–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631325. Accessed 18 Mar. 2025.
4. Fields, Barbara J. “Whiteness, Racism, and Identity.” International Labor and Working-Class History, no. 60, 2001, pp. 48–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27672735. Accessed 18 Mar. 2025.